User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:09:55 PM EDT
[#1]
$3000?!?! And you're seriously considering it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:17:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: $3000?!?! And you're seriously considering it? Apparently they just put $2000 worth of wheels and racing tires on it. Also understand that I have NO freaking idea what these things are worth. Hence the request for help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:19:16 PM EDT
[#3]
In 1980 I got my first car... an 1972 Olds Omega which was same as the Chevy Nova. It had 89,000 miles on it and had 4 decent tires and it cost me $500. I wasn't old enough to drive it so I had to have my dad drive it home. It sat in the drive way for few months until I was old enough to drive it. I had that car until 1986 when I got my first new car... a Toyota 4x4 pick-up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:20:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Must have a $1000 stereo too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:24:12 PM EDT
[#5]
I think the question you should be asking yourself is..
Do you plan on using this car to beef it up as a weekend street racer? Or a daily driver? My mom had a '73 Nova. It was a reliable and powerful car. In 86 she swaped the V-6 and put a V-8 in that bitch, one FAST car! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:25:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Well, let's see:
What shape is the body in? How about the floor boards? How much bondo? Is the unibody straight? What kind of engine work? Wheeles and tires ain't worth $2000 alone. Was it built into a muscle car? Do they have reciepts that show what kind of parts were put into the car? Without more info, it's hard to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:27:26 PM EDT
[#7]
My two cents, couple years ago my brother bought a '74 Nova with a 350 dropped in it (~1000mi), new tires and a new shift kit (~50mi) for $1500. We added some headers and put a new suspension system in it, then parked it cause it started to drink gas a little too fast...
Ultimately the worth is up to you, but I'd ask for proof of the $2k in 'updates' Jonathan |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:28:09 PM EDT
[#8]
I drove a '73 Chevrolet Nova in Driver Training class in high school in 1974. It sucked! It had some small POS engine with little power and a POS automatic transmission. Drum brakes on all four wheels, no room in the back seat, poor visibility, rough ride, noisy, and no redeeming social value whatsoever IIRC.
The Mexicans all made fun of it - "No va" in Spanish means "It doesn't go." I have no clue as to its value, but unless it had a tweaked V8 engine and some serious after-market suspension work I wouldn't want to drive it. If you have $3K to spend why don't you look into an old Porsche or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:35:10 PM EDT
[#9]
My mom had a '73 Nova. It was a reliable and powerful car. In 86 she swaped the V-6 and put a V-8 in that bitch, one FAST car! Not absolutely sure about this, but I seem to recall the Novas of that era having an inline 6 as the base engine (250 cubic inches?) – reliable, but not exactly a speed demon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:37:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Okay, so a no go on this one?
I've looked at a few on autotrader and found some sweet ones for $1500 less. Thanks for all the input though, I'm glad a did a lot more research on this (including asking you guys [;d] ) before I told the person I'd take a look at their car. -UHLEK- |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:51:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Okay, so a no go on this one? I've looked at a few on autotrader and found some sweet ones for $1500 less. Thanks for all the input though, I'm glad a did a lot more research on this (including asking you guys [;d] ) before I told the person I'd take a look at their car. -UHLEK- Take a look at the car, what do you have to lose? I could be that he has a lot tied up in the car, but needs to unload it due to finacial reasons. You just need to know what to look for!! I've had 3 Nova's so far, a '69 SS that my dad ordered in the winter of '68, a '76 that I drove until I went into bootcamp (about 2 years) and a '72 that was built up a little (.30 over, decent cam, 3.73 rear, TH350 auto, and a few other things). If you don't know much about muscle cars, and that is what he is advertising, have a mechanic you trust look over it with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:52:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: My mom had a '73 Nova. It was a reliable and powerful car. In 86 she swaped the V-6 and put a V-8 in that bitch, one FAST car! Not absolutely sure about this, but I seem to recall the Novas of that era having an inline 6 as the base engine (250 cubic inches?) – reliable, but not exactly a speed demon. And thats why she had the v-8 put in when the milage on the 6 got really high. I wasnt sure if it was a v-6 or an i-6 first. When the 8 was added thats when it was pretty peppy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:53:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Okay, so a no go on this one? I've looked at a few on autotrader and found some sweet ones for $1500 less. Thanks for all the input though, I'm glad a did a lot more research on this (including asking you guys [;d] ) before I told the person I'd take a look at their car. -UHLEK- Take a look at the car, what do you have to lose? I could be that he has a lot tied up in the car, but needs to unload it due to finacial reasons. You just need to know what to look for!! I've had 3 Nova's so far, a '69 SS that my dad ordered in the winter of '68, a '76 that I drove until I went into bootcamp (about 2 years) and a '72 that was built up a little (.30 over, decent cam, 3.73 rear, TH350 auto, and a few other things). If you don't know much about muscle cars, and that is what he is advertising, have a mechanic you trust look over it with you. Okay, I'll check it out. Thanks for the advise. -UHLEK- |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:55:59 PM EDT
[#14]
take some pics for us to see, we might be able to see something you dont.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 9:56:20 PM EDT
[#15]
FWIW, although it's not widely enforced, modifiing a non-California car that's model year 1968 and later is a federal offence under the Clean Air Act amendments. If it's a California car, then it's illegal if it's a 1966 or later model year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:02:23 PM EDT
[#16]
What kind of law is that? Ca law is anything 73 and before is smog exempt and you can do what ever you want with it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:13:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: What kind of law is that? Ca law is anything 73 and before is smog exempt and you can do what ever you want with it It's a federal law. As originally written, the Clean Air Act made it illegal for dealers or manufacturers to change the configuration of emissions components or anything that could affect emissions. When the Clean Air Act was ammended in 1990, it made it illegal for [i]anyone[/i] to do those things. Although California will not require the car to pass an emissions test, due to a rolling exemption(?), messing with the car is still against [i]federal[/i] law. I beleive that it is also against California law. Back when I checked, their website said that although they wouldn't check cars that were that old, it was still an offence to tamper with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:19:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Can anyone tell me what some of this stuff is?
1976 CHEVROLET NOVA HB 350 SB, 4bolt Nain bal. bored 30 over foged 10.1 compression speed pro piston, competition camshaft 280 duration more $1995 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:21:39 PM EDT
[#19]
this must be one of those laws no one even pays attention to. Most vehicles older than that are polluting mothers anyways. Anyhting that you do to them is probably going ot reduce emissions. Especially an engine swap, changeing a carbed motor to a EFI setup would have drastic effects on it.
I wonder if anyone has been nailed on this law, as there are car shows all the time with vehilces that are changed quite a bit |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:24:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Can anyone tell me what some of this stuff is? 1976 CHEVROLET NOVA HB 350 SB, 4bolt Nain bal. bored 30 over foged 10.1 compression speed pro piston, competition camshaft 280 duration more $1995 Well the SB is Small Black which you can tell by the 350 CI designation 4 bolt is the main caps that have four bolts instead of 2. Which makes it stronger I suspect he means main balanced whihc is the reciprocating mass is balanced so it doesnt flop around bored 30 over and the compression means it has a little more space in the motor(Easy description) and compression means it has a little more umph. But if u go to high you need a higher octane fuel |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:25:09 PM EDT
[#21]
I didn't think that anything outside of CA had any smog equipment at all until 73, which is why there is generally a premium on the asking price of many pre 74 two doors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:26:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Can anyone tell me what some of this stuff is? 1976 CHEVROLET NOVA HB 350 SB, 4bolt Nain bal. bored 30 over foged 10.1 compression speed pro piston, competition camshaft 280 duration more $1995 HB = Hatch Back(?) -350 SB = 350 cubic inch small block V8 -4 bolt Nain = 4 bolt main bearings, as opposed to 2. This is stronger and was used for high performance engines. bal. = probably means balanced, ie., a machine shop balanced the inside of the engine just like they balance tires. smoother running, less wear. -.30 over = standard overbore when rebuilding an engine. cleans up the cylinder walls so the new rings will seat correctly. Makes total displacement somewhere around 355 cubic inches. -forged speed pro pistons = forged is always good, especially if you want nitrous (see above legal note) -10.1 compression ratio = that's probably gonna need 93 octane or more if it's hot outside -280 camshaft = probably gonna have a bit of a rough idle, but good midrange and top end power, IIRC. Someone else wanna help with that one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:28:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I didn't think that anything outside of CA had any smog equipment at all until 73, which is why there is generally a premium on the asking price of many pre 74 two doors. They didn't have smog pumps or converters prior to that date, which means that they still don't need them now. However, they were still tested and certified when they were first produced, and any change to the engine is considered tampering with "an element of design" that was in place when the car was certified as "clean enough." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:29:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: this must be one of those laws no one even pays attention to. Most vehicles older than that are polluting mothers anyways. Anyhting that you do to them is probably going ot reduce emissions. Especially an engine swap, changeing a carbed motor to a EFI setup would have drastic effects on it. I wonder if anyone has been nailed on this law, as there are car shows all the time with vehilces that are changed quite a bit Yeah, it is one of those laws that's not enforced. I asked the EPA about it back when I first got my '69 Barracuda, and they said that it's illegal, but they don't have the funds to do stuff about it, usually. However, I guess you never know... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:40:07 PM EDT
[#25]
So wouldn't that make changing spark plugs or even a muffler illegal? I mean I would hate to get pulled over and be issued a fine for having a midas mufler instead of the original Mopar part, and that would most certainly be "tampering" with the original configuration. Although that would be a great law to enforce if they start with my neighbot with the Civic that has a six inch wide tail pipe) I could care less about how it looks or whatever but when he starts his car to go to work at 4:30 in the morning it is annoying).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:41:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Okay:
THe 280 cam is gonna give you a little more bottom end torque, and good mid range HP, but will increase RPM at hiway spped (if it's a 3 speed automatic, you will be turning around 3200-3500 at 55-65 MPH, depending on the rear gears). The .30 over means that the cylinders were bored out .30 inches, which increases the cubic inches. Balanced is as described above. With the 10.1-1 compression, run 93 (94 if you have Sunoco around you) with an octane booster to avoid the ping. The idle won't be bad, more of a good loping sound, and depending on the exaust system, might not even really noticable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 10:49:27 PM EDT
[#27]
And make sure that it has an electronic distributior!!! Don't mess with the old points style stuff!!!
If he has a newer MSD setup with a spark box (like a MSD6AL or MSD7) then you will be good to go. Hell, even a stock GM HEI setup is better than points!! Ask what type of trans it has, and what size rear end (12 bolt or 10 bolt) and ask about the gear size. Also, gind out if he is running stock axles. If he has stock axles, find out if he has the c-clip eliminator kit installed. If he has aftermarket axles, find out what brand. Also find out if it has headders, or stock style exhaust manifolds. What size carb? Double pumper or vaccum secondaries? Carter type or Holly type? Or the Predator style? If a Holly, is it a Barry Grant set up? Manual fuel pump or electric? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 11:41:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: So wouldn't that make changing spark plugs or even a muffler illegal? I mean I would hate to get pulled over and be issued a fine for having a midas mufler instead of the original Mopar part, and that would most certainly be "tampering" with the original configuration. Although that would be a great law to enforce if they start with my neighbot with the Civic that has a six inch wide tail pipe) I could care less about how it looks or whatever but when he starts his car to go to work at 4:30 in the morning it is annoying). Exactly. That iritated quite a few aftermarket parts manufacturers, so they came up with EPA Memorandum 1A. This says that if the part is a replacement part, you can use it if you have a reasonable belief that the part performs the same function, as concerns emissions, as the factory part. If the part is an add-on, as opposed to replacement, then it has to go though certification. AFAIK, the easiest way to get the certification is to get it approved for California by way of a C.A.R.B. E.O. number. The EPA recognizes C.A.R.B. approval as meaning that the part doesn't adversly affect emissions, which makes it legal. The problem with most aftermarket performance parts that could be used for replacement is that they have labels on the box stating, "Not legal for sale or use on emissions controlled vehicles." That sort of blows the whole Memo. 1A "reasonable belief" right out the window. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2003 11:43:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Of course, I'm no lawyer, so, like, check this stuff out for yerselves... [;D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 3:11:41 AM EDT
[#30]
I just sold my 1973 Nova Custom last weekend for $4,500.00.
It had the following; 350 motor with four bbl carb and headers floor shifted turbo 350 trans 10 bolt posi rear bucket seats front disc brakes rust spots starting to show thru decent paint I bought the car 1 year ago for $750.00. All I did to it was clean it up, wax it and park it in the garage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 4:26:21 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: I didn't think that anything outside of CA had any smog equipment at all until 73, which is why there is generally a premium on the asking price of many pre 74 two doors. They didn't have smog pumps or converters prior to that date, which means that they still don't need them now. However, they were still tested and certified when they were first produced, and any change to the engine is considered tampering with "an element of design" that was in place when the car was certified as "clean enough." I don't know about any other brands but Fords, but they did have smog pumps prior to 1973 and command premium prices with restorers because most people trashed them. Johnphin, From my understanding of the Clean Air Act of 1990 it refered to manufacturers, imported engines, and people selling cars. Regarding memo 1A. The question is in dealing with the word "conversion". It is my understanding that conversion doesnt mean switching parts but bewteen fuel sources such as LPG and CNG. This makes sense if you look that in 1997 the EPA made an addendum to Memo 1A because it was found that emissions were worse in these alternate fuel source autos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 4:47:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didn't think that anything outside of CA had any smog equipment at all until 73, which is why there is generally a premium on the asking price of many pre 74 two doors. They didn't have smog pumps or converters prior to that date, which means that they still don't need them now. However, they were still tested and certified when they were first produced, and any change to the engine is considered tampering with "an element of design" that was in place when the car was certified as "clean enough." I don't know about any other brands but Fords, but they did have smog pumps prior to 1973 and command premium prices with restorers because most people trashed them. Johnphin, From my understanding of the Clean Air Act of 1990 it refered to manufacturers, imported engines, and people selling cars. From the standpoint of it affecting everyone I find it hard to believe given the enormous after-market parts( SEMA). The Feds would surely not overlook something that big. The Clean Air Act, as amended, refers to everyone. Talking to the EPA and acctually reading the law, it is clear that it is a violation for everyone. Quote from Clean Air Act Title II Part A Sec. 203 (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited- (3)(A): for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regula- tions under this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any person knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or Once again, "element of design" is a crucial part in the understanding of the true implications of this law. For instance, replacing the 2-bbl carburetor on your car with a 4-bbl, while not [i]removing[/i] a part, is considered tampering with an emissions critical "element of design" that was built into the car at the time of certification. As for SEMA, the parts that it's members sell are legal for 1 or more of 3 possible reasons: 1) They are sold as parts for "race cars" and as such, they are not legal to use on any car that will be driven on a street. 2) They are exempted under Memo 1A or C.A.R.B. as not being harmful to emissions. 3) They are sold for cars built prior to 1968 federal certification/1966 California certification. Concerning racing parts, this is part of an email that I got from Steve Albrink at the EPA: EPA published regulations at 40 C.F.R. 85.1703 to guide persons in determining whether their vehicles are motor vehicles subject to the Act. The crucial standard regarding racing vehicles is whether the vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street use or exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely. Our policy is to consider a vehicle a racing vehicle only if it is not practically capable of use on public highways and not licensable for such purpose. No permit is required from EPA to build or operate a racing vehicle or engine. Therefore, if the vehicle is truly a "racing vehicle" and does not fit within the definition of a motor vehicle as mentioned above, the tampering prohibition does not apply to modifications. (Edited to change "Albring" to "Albrink") |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 4:58:37 AM EDT
[#33]
Johnphin, I was making a change to my post and you responded to quickly. I think you or I am confused on memo 1A
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:05:02 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quote from Clean Air Act Title II Part A Sec. 203 (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited- (3)(A): for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regula- tions under this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any person knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or your quote above states what I said, it mentions the seller in both cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:12:45 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Quote from Clean Air Act Title II Part A Sec. 203 (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited- (3)(A): for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regula- tions under this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, [red]or for [/red][blue]any person[/blue][red] knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design[/red] [blue]after[/blue] [red]such[/red] [blue]sale[/blue] [red]and delivery to the ultimate purchaser[/red]; or your quote above states what I said, it mentions the seller in both cases. Yes, but keep reading! Check out the nifty colors in the quote above... See? It's illegal to tamper before OR after sale. In other words, it's illegal to tamper period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:14:46 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Johnphin, I was making a change to my post and you responded to quickly. I think you or I am confused on memo 1A I think we're talking about differnt parts of it. Memo 1A discusses the conversion of vehicles to a "cleaner" fuel as well as addresses aftermarket parts for repair or replacement and their legality. Two separate issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:19:16 AM EDT
[#37]
Upon rereading Memo 1a, it does NOT talk about "clean fuel converions." Apparantly, it only talks about using non-factory replacement parts and what not, as I mentioned above. The pdf file can be found here:
[url]http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/2753.pdf[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:25:51 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Upon rereading Memo 1a, it does NOT talk about "clean fuel converions." Apparantly, it only talks about using non-factory replacement parts and what not, as I mentioned above. The pdf file can be found here: [url]http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/2753.pdf[/url] Yeah after rereading it does. The addendum to it in 1997 addresses the alternate fuel sources. Still, looking at memo 1A all I can see is it talking about dealers(sellers). This stuff is starting to give me a headache. Its like trying to make sense of vague gun laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:37:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Upon rereading Memo 1a, it does NOT talk about "clean fuel converions." Apparantly, it only talks about using non-factory replacement parts and what not, as I mentioned above. The pdf file can be found here: [url]http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/2753.pdf[/url] Yeah after rereading it does. The addendum to it in 1997 addresses the alternate fuel sources. Still, looking at memo 1A all I can see is it talking about dealers(sellers). This stuff is starting to give me a headache. Its like trying to make sense of vague gun laws. Oohhh, okay. I see what you're saying now. You're right, Memo 1A does only talk about sellers. Here's how it works. As originally written, the Clean Air Act was only written to prohibbit dealers from tampering with cars. Soon after, Memo 1A was written to clarify that, so it too was written for dealers. 1990 rolls along and the Clean Air Act is amended to say, "any person." Instead of writing a new memo, they just decided that the old one applied to "any person" now too. I have no document of this, other than emails from that Steve Albrink EPA guy. Here's what he had to say about it: As written, Memorandum 1A is directed only to dealers and vehicle and engine manufacturers. However, in 1977 and again in 1990, section 203(a)(3) was amended and the tampering prohibition now extends to "any person." Consequently, the policy enunciated in Memorandum 1A has been extended to apply to any person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 5:45:03 AM EDT
[#40]
well I guess we beat that to death. Now I feel guilty of thread-jacking.
Regarding the Nova. I would take a look at it. The way older cars are selling for I don't think the price is that bad. You will be the ultimate decision maker if it is worth it or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 6:03:35 AM EDT
[#41]
When I was growing up, my father had a '73 or '74 (I Can't recal) Nova Hatch Back with a 3 on the Tree....she was a "tank" and that is what we called her.
EVERYTHING was manual. When I was 16 (1985) My father gave it to me. It was 11-12 years old and ran good. It had a nice engine, never had a problem with that. But My Lord did that sucker RUST!!!! Hole on the floor belwo the gas peddle...aong many others. But the Carburator(sp?) Flap would stick, every so often and I'd have to get out and pop the hood and knock it loose, it was funny as hell!!! The 3 on the Tree was Bear to drive at 16!!! But she had over 150K miles on it when we got rid of it. Shoot me an IM if you have any specific Questions |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 8:49:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: And make sure that it has an electronic distributior!!! Don't mess with the old points style stuff!!! If he has a newer MSD setup with a spark box (like a MSD6AL or MSD7) then you will be good to go. Hell, even a stock GM HEI setup is better than points!! Ask what type of trans it has, and what size rear end (12 bolt or 10 bolt) and ask about the gear size. Also, gind out if he is running stock axles. If he has stock axles, find out if he has the c-clip eliminator kit installed. If he has aftermarket axles, find out what brand. Also find out if it has headders, or stock style exhaust manifolds. What size carb? Double pumper or vaccum secondaries? Carter type or Holly type? Or the Predator style? If a Holly, is it a Barry Grant set up? Manual fuel pump or electric? Damn, I had to write this all down. Thanks, it'll give me a set of stuff to start with. I'm gonna call the guy and rattle off with this. -UHLEK- |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2003 12:15:49 PM EDT
[#43]
I think it's definately worth a closer look. They are nice cars IMO. My father has a '74 Hatchback. It's a little worn down now and we're kind of restoring it.. but as a young kid I remember riding in it and boy was it fast.. I loved it. [:)] It originally had a 350ci. V-8 in it but a year before I was born ('82) my father built a 327ci engine and put that in it.. It still has the mechanical distributor in it that no one likes but it ran like a top.. I think he said it dyno'd at 325hp to the rear when it was new.. For all those years it had a Rochester Quadra-Jet (sp?) carb. on it but it's a pain in the butt :rolleyes: and he just put a Holley on it. the trans. is an auto.. but oh well. it's a 3-speed borg warner.. I remember 2nd gear worked quite well for passing cars. [:D]
I can't wait 'till we're done.. it'll be great to ride in it again.. and I've never had the chance to drive it. [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2003 6:25:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Did you go check it out?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2003 7:17:06 PM EDT
[#45]
I had a '73 Chevy Nova back in college. It has a unibody, which means there is no frame from end to end. Therefore watch for the rust in the body.
I bought mine in 1978 and had it until 1985 put over 125,000 miles on it. I like that car, until the end when it started to really go down hill. Sorry if someone already posted this. Good luck. Merlin |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2003 1:03:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Did you go check it out? I did. Rust throughout, loads of bondo and a bad paint job, only 3 of the 6 cylinders are working. I offered $200. He said "Oh, I can't let it go for that, how about $2800?" I wished him luck in unloading it and went home. [:D] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
